You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

At first glans, this paper would be off-topic, but it would hopefully contribute to physical science as it suggests novel methods for measuring speed of light emitted from moving objects. Speed of light has been measured by various methods and to current knowledge is believed to be constant. These techniques include accurately known measurement methods of the day; e.g. cavity resonator, radio and laser interferometry etc. and are persistently revised. Despite the fact that there exists some controversy regarding the limit of speed of light, but there also methods like FEL (A free-electron laser or FEL, is a type of laser whose lasing medium consists of very-high-speed electrons moving freely through a magnetic structure). Proposed method is based on a conception of measuring the speed of light from a moving frame which according to the principal of special relativity would be a constant quantity in vacuum and is independent of the frame and its relative velocity whether the light is received or emitted. In spite of the theoretical part i.e. relativity and Doppler Effect and the fact that Michelson and Morley experiment doesn’t measure the speed of light directly, this method suggests an applied measurement which needs to be tested. In addition another method based on fringe shift is suggested on a rotating Michelson-Morley platform. In fact the Sagnac effect has already shown a non-null result [1] as it is done on a rotational platform, but this method is somewhat different as one of the mirrors has a slower linear/angular velocity then the other one.

Your proposed experiment is good. You said… ” An emitting source of light (emitting frame) which is the moving frame has a relative uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary frame. The measuring frame which comprising of measuring devices, is stationary relative to the emitting frame. Furthermore the...

Your proposed experiment is good. You said… ” An emitting source of light (emitting frame) which is the moving frame has a relative uniform velocity v with respect to the stationary frame. The measuring frame which comprising of measuring devices, is stationary relative to the emitting frame. Furthermore the light is assumed to propagate in vacuum.”

Slight doubts are there… According to your experiment, Earth is stationary and rocket is moving with uniform velocity. But in our Dynamic Universe, both are moving on curves. Relative motion will never be linear. Probably you will have to make slight correction for that effect…. Hope you will discuss…

I request you to please have a look on my essay also….For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…

Thanks for your comment, as a matter of fact as you mentioned about curvature, this regards all experiments that we do, as vi, our solarsystem and our galaxy all are rotating but we have approximate linearity that works good an small distances, I hope i could answer your questions. I'll proceed to your paper shortly.

Kind regards

Koorosh

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 16:43 GMT

Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Thank you for your comments, my view is although we observe a complex world, but I think underneath it is much more simple that we can't really comprehend as we only kan comprehend part of the real universe.

Kind regards

Koorosh

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:54 GMT

Dear Koorosh,

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due...

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due to the action of a set of gravitational waves in form of streams of gravitins. Some gravitational waves finish the action on the device, others start, and can act from different sides. Therefore strangely enough, but your device belongs to the class of an optical gravitational wave recorder, like LIGO and LISA projects, but it is much more compact and simpler.

An important advantage of your device is its lack of inertia, it does not have inert mass, but registers both low frequency and high-frequency variations of the action of gravitational waves by measuring of the speed of movement of the luminiferous medium. I hope that the sensitivity of the device will be much higher than the inertial devices.

Therefore, your work will allow to rethinking the mechanism of gravity, which determines the self-organization of matter and, thus, to get more accurate answers to the questions posed in the competition.

Everyone expected the Earth to move in the laminar flow of the luminiferous medium, but in fact, on its act turbulent streams of gravitons in the gravitational waves. The light-bearing medium is a superfluid medium in which there are practically no laminar streams.

Many tried to repeat the experiment of Michelson and Morley, somebody received a low speed of luminiferous medium, and someone did not get no speed , because the gravitational waves on the surface of the Earth operate mainly from 12 to 24 hours of solar time. Who and when measured speed - history is silent.

My essay states that Michelson and Morley were to get the averaged velocity of the Earth in a light-bearing medium of 8 km/s and they received it . The speed of motion of the light-bearing medium relative to the Earth is transformed in the first cosmic velocity of the Earth, the square of which determines the gravitational potential of the Earth's surface.

I.e., gravity has the dynamic cause; its mechanism is considered in my essay. By the simple detector of gravitational waves, I was able to also register the turbulence light medium register the turbulence light medium .

Sorry, the previous message does not work links. I expose the message a second time.

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due to the action of a set of gravitational waves in form of streams of gravitins. Some gravitational waves finish the action on the device, others start, and can act from different sides. Therefore strangely enough, but your device belongs to the class of an optical gravitational wave recorder, like LIGO and LISA projects, but it is much more compact and simpler.

An important advantage of your device is its lack of inertia, it does not have inert mass, but registers both low frequency and high-frequency variations of the action of gravitational waves by measuring of the speed of movement of the luminiferous medium. I hope that the sensitivity of the device will be much higher than the inertial devices.

Therefore, your work will allow to rethinking the mechanism of gravity, which determines the self-organization of matter and, thus, to get more accurate answers to the questions posed in the competition.

Everyone expected the Earth to move in the laminar flow of the luminiferous medium, but in fact, on its act turbulent streams of gravitons in the gravitational waves. The light-bearing medium is a superfluid medium in which there are practically no laminar streams.

Many tried to repeat the experiment of Michelson and Morley, somebody received a low speed of luminiferous medium, and someone did not get no speed , because the gravitational waves on the surface of the Earth operate mainly from 12 to 24 hours of solar time. Who and when measured speed - history is silent.

My essay states that Michelson and Morley were to get the averaged velocity of the Earth in a light-bearing medium of 8 km/s and they received it . The speed of motion of the light-bearing medium relative to the Earth is transformed in the first cosmic velocity of the Earth, the square of which determines the gravitational potential of the Earth's surface.

I.e., gravity has the dynamic cause; its mechanism is considered in my essay. By the simple detector of gravitational waves, I was able to also register the turbulence light medium register the turbulence light medium .

I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.

How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..

6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.

12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

You have described your proposal well. Question: having the emitter on a rocket moving at velocity v will introduce Doppler shifts in the wavelength. Why a moving emitter at all?

In my theory of light moving through a discrete universal ether at a maximum speed c Beautiful Universe Theory n pure vacuume, but at slower speeds in gravitational or otherwise energized fields, c would be faster on the Space Station than c measured on Earth. Or would it ? Since clocks would give slower time? Needs thinking out by experts!

Thank you Indeed for your comments, regarding your question about Doppler effect as you mentioned, Doppler effect will happen in our case, but in this method vi are not concerned about it, we only measure the time difference which in our particular case does not involving neither SR nor Doppler effect. The reason I proposing a moving frame, it a novel way of measuring the speed of light from truly moving objects as e.g. MMX doesn't measure speed of light but just measuring fringe shift instead.

Regarding the speed of light on the space station, as I suggested one could calibrate the device as "c" would be measured when the frames are at rest with respect to each other, in this way have vi eliminated what you mentioned about possible energized fields that would impact "c".

I hope, this could clarify your questions more.

Kind Regards

Koorosh

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT

Kooroosh.

Off topic but worthy of comment. I've studied this issue for some time and agree that better experiments are required as theory and analysis are incorrect, that yours is reasonable set-up, but also that the findings will be analysed as finding precisely 'c'. Are you familiar for instance with Lodges 'spinning glass disc' experiments? and Ruyon Wang's recent advanced 'Sagnac'...

Off topic but worthy of comment. I've studied this issue for some time and agree that better experiments are required as theory and analysis are incorrect, that yours is reasonable set-up, but also that the findings will be analysed as finding precisely 'c'. Are you familiar for instance with Lodges 'spinning glass disc' experiments? and Ruyon Wang's recent advanced 'Sagnac' experiments? i.e.Modified Sagnac experiment etc.

We also need to refine your specification. When you write; "The measuring frame which comprising of measuring devices, is stationary relative to the emitting frame" that by convention means it is NOT IN RELATIVE MOTION with respect to (wrt) the emitter rest frame. But I see that is not what you meant, so it should strictly read; 'at rest in the stationary frame.' However it'd be better to define the frames as K1 and K2 because EITHER could be arbitrarily considered 'stationary', unless you assign some frame K to the vacuum (which is reasonable, but you don't).

Now a question. If your 'light detectors' have a glass lens with a free electron surface structure and dense medium with refractive index 'n' at what speed wrt the lens rest frame would you expect light to pass through? Now lets take TWO lenses with one in motion at 0.1c towards the emitter and one at 0.1c away from it. Would you expect light to pass through the glass lenses at different speeds? of course not, and in experiments we always find c/n, but with Doppler shifts. So what may that be telling us?

Thank you for your comments, I went though your links, very interesting articles. As you mentioned we can't have any fix reference as the earth and solar system and our galaxy are in complex motion, but I agree that either frame could be considered stationary, so simply we could say detector-frame or light emitting frame to be more precise.

At the detector side there should be inbuilt antennas and no lenses involved then we are not concerned about the refraction. As regards the Doppler effect, that will happen but we are just measuring the time difference as the distance between the detectors is known. Finally we'll get the speed of light with arbitrary precision as we also calibrated our detectors.

I hope I've been able to answer your question.

Best regards

Koorosh

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT

Kooroosh,

That shows flexible thinking so is very good. However my prediction of 'c' remains and matches all findings. Yet doctrine is still wrong. For 'why'; consider this carefully;

ALL matter (not just what we call a 'lense'!) has a surface 'fine structure' of free fermions, familiar as electrons, (or in plasma physics 'surface plasmons' etc.) In Maxwell terms, adding physical reality, this forms the TRANSITION ZONE (TZ) between his 'near' and 'far' fields. An aerial engineer will tell you exactly where it is, varying with wavelength but for light it's around max 1 micron. For a spacecraft or plane it's some metres off the body (it can even often be seen!)

Light will therefore be modulated to the LOCAL rest frame c on arrival at the 'near field' ALL matter and on ALL electron interactions!

So if your receptors are anywhere near each other I fear the result will be 'c' and reinforce poor science. But if they're far apart, then most will likely say their relative range can't be precise enough. It is a big problem, and past experiments have similarly just served to re-inforce doctrine as interpretation is flawed. But do keep working at it!

None the less your low score is rather an insult so adding mine now will help. I hope you may get other constructive responses. I also hope you may read, like and score mine - which I think contains a very important finding also not analysed by most!

Thank you Peter, I agree that the precision of "c" would be a concern at low distances, but the detectors have to be calibrated to be able eliminating such source of possible errors as much as possible. The actual result that is essential here, it is to say that the speed of light would be constant. I will go through your essay.

Best regards

Koorosh

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 06:15 GMT

Hi dear Koorosh,

Actually you have touching to very important old problem of fundamental physics that however now stands somewhat out of agenda. There was the decision to take this (speed of light) as it is represented in SR and do not to try to change anything here. But some contradictions still continued remains there. That is why your suggestion on new measurement of light's speed can change a lot of things.

But I'm really sceptical that someone will take this opportunity to again put under doubt the declared principles of relativity. The questions however continued to excitate truly thinkers. That is why I decide to support you with my rating.

Please to open my work and check there Ref. [3] where me also put this question and have describe the principle of similar experiment that can causally to explain how we can get the Lorentz transformation and SR without mysteries. But ... who will listen to us?

Thank you for your kind words, I man delighted that I been able to get my message out to people like yourself. As you also mentioned there are still doubts about SR, and it seems that the mainstream has lost orientation in some areas.

I will proceed to your essay shortly.

Warm regards

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 23:03 GMT

Kooroosh,

I assume that such an experiment has not been tried before -- rocket to ISS. Does the speed of the target, about 17,000 and the speed of the rocket matter in this endeavor? What about rotation speed?

I support out-of-the-box ideas and will rate accordingly. As a science fiction writer, I endeavor to consider unknown factors like quantum entanglement, for example, as a possible factor in speed, something a type 0 civilization does not have the knowledge to consider.

My essay considers speculative ventures to look at dark matter as well. Hope you can check mine out as well.

Thank you for your comments, you touched a very interesting question about the speed of the rocket and I believe that would be a very technical issue, but I think reasonable speed could be a factor of 1000 km/h, but as a matter fact, it is about the null result outcome considering the relative speed of the two frames.

As regards the rotational systems, all of our experiments are performed in a complex rotational system, considering earth, solar system and our galaxy, but in such situations there is a concept called approximate symmetry and approximate linearity which can be applied to this experiment and by this way the experimental data can be treated as it would happen in a linear system by approximation.

I will proceed tor your essay and wish you good luck.

Kind regards

Koorosh

James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:27 GMT

Koorosh,

I checked out your prior essay and tend to agree with you: "The human being are shaped to comprehend discontinuous chunks of a wholeness or totality." It is something we don't seem to perceive in that light. I was also in that contest and missed reading your essay at that point.

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.